Posted
by
Zonkon Tuesday July 10, 2007 @11:58AM
from the clouding-the-issue dept.

Sony fans undoubtedly cheered the news of a $100 drop in price for the 60GB PS3, but even with the price drop there are several issues surrounding the console. 1up reports that the 80GB PS3 is following the lead of the EU-released PS3s by removing the Emotion engine and relying on software emulation for backwards compatibility. In an effort to decrease costs Sony continues to reduce features and develop their product. Meanwhile, Konami executive Kazumi Kitaue doesn't see much impact from the cut ... and in fact told Reuters that they're seriously considering a multi-platform release for Metal Gear Solid 4. "Kitaue said Konami may need to expand the target hardware for its blockbuster fighting game Metal Gear Solid, which has so far been developed for Sony's PlayStation machines, to other consoles in the future to recoup development costs ... The release of the latest version of Metal Gear Solid series is expected to help lure hard-core gamers to the PS3 and alleviate concerns over scarcity of strong PS3 titles. Underscoring sluggish PS3 sales and robust demand for the Wii, Nintendo shot past Sony in market value last month and bumped the Tokyo-based electronics conglomerate off the list of Japan's 10 most valuable companies."

OTOH, I bet they'd be less happy if Sony fails to do anything to try to increase the install base; without a bigger install base, game support will melt away, and they'll end up with an expensive brick that can play a few crappy titles.

...and they'll end up with an expensive brick that can play a few crappy titles.

I've been keeping my fingers crossed that the console will tank so that I can pick one up on the cheap and make it a Linux box. I have no clue what I'm doing, so I'm unwilling to pay $X99.99 to tinker with it...but $50 for a used console from an angry ex-Sony fan? Sign me up!

Early adopters always have and always will pay inflated prices. You paid extra to get the PS3 at launch. If you were concerned about a hundred bucks, you should have waited until a year after launch to buy. Sure, this price cut comes a little earlier than usual, but price cuts are by no means unprecedented. As with any new technology, the prices start out very high and decrease over time.

The best case scenario for manufacturers is for price cuts to happen because economies of scale start to kick in causing manufacturing costs per unit to drop. However, it is certainly not unheard of for new technology (or any other product for that matter) to get a price cut because the sales numbers are disappointing. Next you'll be complaining that Dole owes you 10 cents because you bought a can of peaches the day before it went on sale.

It's indirectly good for the early adopters. When they lower the price, sales should go up. If sales go up, it has the potential to attract more developer attention. More developer attention means more games being released.

Of course, doesn't mean early adopters ought to be cheering in the streets... unless you consider that a price drop may mean more sales of the console. A bigger install base means there's a wider audience for your game to develop for PS3. And that's good for everyone with a PS3 including early adopters.

According to Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt, but it does match what I can remember), the PS2's price history from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS2#History [wikipedia.org]:
North America[24]

Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!! Software emulation as been in the Euro consoles since release over there. No features are being taken away at all. This is a gaming console we're talking about, not a PC. There is no disadvantage of emulating in software rather than hardware. There are no background apps that will be starved for CPU time because the emulation is in software rather than hardware!

There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.

I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.

The first anti-Sony rants specifically concerning the PS3 that I saw on Slashdot were in March-April 2006, when Sony announced the price for the PS3, and SCEI president Ken Kutaragi made multiple brash statements to support its price. Posters mocked the hubris.

Before that time, most of the PS3 posts I remember regarded how cool the cell processor was supposed to be, and how great it would make PS3 games look and feel.

This of course ignores the rootkit fiasco, and the general hatred of Sony that resulted from it, as Sony stepped out from behind the cover of the RIAA to be in the spotlight as a big bad music label. And it ignores people upset about the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD war and how Sony's 30-year plan to own its own formats has screwed consumers time and time again. And how Sony's content divisions have taken control of the company, rendering products made by their (previously high-quality) hardware divisions crippled, like my otherwise very nice Sony plasma TV that can't play Sony Pictures' movies released on Sony Blu-Ray discs in a Sony Blu-Ray player without downscaling the graphics, because I "might try to copy them".

The first anti-Sony rants specifically concerning the PS3 that I saw on Slashdot were in March-April 2006, when Sony announced the price for the PS3, and SCEI president Ken Kutaragi made multiple brash statements to support its price. Posters mocked the hubris.

This sort of thing always makes me stop and gape in wonder. A large, successful company run by people who have proven themselves with smart decisions in the past make a momentous decision with serious future ramifications and proceed to trip over their own dicks. What the hell? These sorts of slow-motion trainwrecks never should have happened. There are rules in place, people whose livelihoods depend on making the right call are in positions of power and have a vested interest in doing right and yet they a

It's a fundamental issue of respect. Sony's PR department has been incompetant, and displayed on a consistant basis the attitude that we, the loyal gamers were sheep for them to shear at their leisure. Over time they improved somewhat, but there was a long period following E3 2006 where nothing that came out of Sony's marketing department was anything but an insult to the intelligence of those reading.

Gamers, apparently, have a strong ability to bear grudges. While at this time Sony has definately improved their PR, that means diddly squat to a lot of gamers who are still angry about how they were treated last year.

It doesn't help that Sony hasn't explicitly stated they screwed up their PR, although at this point I'm not sure that would be enough to calm many people.

let me continue...
*My Fifth(!) broken ps2
*Minidisc
*UMD
*"People will work two jobs to buy a ps3"
*Uncertain future
*Home (seriously, wtf, go play second life)
*Exploding batteries
Yeah yeah yeah, now all the Sony apologists will say that Microsoft has the same problems. Yeah, and? Are you saying that we shouldn't take either of these companies to task for their crappy business practices? I won't buy a x360 until they stop getting the red ring of death, and I won't buy a ps3 until sony gives me a reas

Poorly built products (Especially compared to the quality of products they were producing in the 80's)

I'm guessing you didn't actually own any Sony consumer electronics in the 80s, they were pretty shoddy back then too. But to counter that I happen to own an initial release PS2 (built in the 00s mind you) that still runs to this day. Not to mention that the PS3 has good track record for reliability compared to the console market as a whole.

I'm not a Sony insider so I do not know what they did or did not know, but I have worked with contracted work where the client had no clue what was happening inside the product. This is not uncommon. The state of Washington didn't know the Tacoma narrows bridge was susceptible to high winds, this is after all why you higher outside contractors. I could have mentioned that it was an exploit of a flaw in the Windows Operating system that allowed the Rootkit to exist in the first place, so why is Rootkit no

I'll quote the most delicious sentence ""Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" he huffed." as said by The President of Sony BMG's global digital business division Thomas Hesse.

Gee - I wonder if this might be why I currently own a Wii, and not a PS3 or an Xbox 360[1]. Of course, Nintendo has been evil in the past, but they seem to have moved beyond that after having it blow up in their face.

It's not this is a war between only the Xbox 360 and the PS3 - there is another console to consider.

[1] Actually, it's not. The Wii has the games I'm interested in, and neither the Xbox 360 and PS3 do. But in any case...

It's all old stuff. You can read most of it in Game Over [wikipedia.org] if you're inclined.

Basically, Nintendo was extremely strong-armed with third party developers during the NES days. You could only publish so many games a year(hence Contra being released as an ULTRA title), and you couldn't publish for other platforms like the Master system. They tried, unsuccessfully to crack down on unlicensed titles via their lockout chip, which was cloned by tengen(among others) and lost the resulting court case. That's also the source for the Nintendo seal of quality(all it really meant then was that a developer had paid the licensing fees, followed the rules, and the cart had a 10NES lockout chip).

They kept this up(being controlling in regards to third parties) to a certain extent until Yamauchi handed the reins over to Igawa.

Additionally, they strong-armed retailers, and to some extent manipulated the software market by having a hard lock on cartridge production.

Also, their Nintendo Authorized Repair Center thing(the US NES had a tendency to break because of the way it loaded, putting stress on the contacts) was a little bit of a scam.

Oh, and censored the original Mortal Kombat for the SNES, before the ESRB came into existance. I think that about covers it all.

It doesn't change what Sony has been doing. It merely frames the question.Clearly the original poster was wondering why everybody is hating Sony, and this forum has simultaneously turned into a Microsoft love-fest.

My point was that, yes, there are plenty of good reasons to be upset with Sony, but that doesn't mean we should hop in bed with Microsoft instead.

(Yeah, yeah, Nintendo, etc... I have a Wii, and it's great, but it's like a toy you have along side your real next-gen gaming system. Other than going o

Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!!

Not according to Sony's own compatability list for the EU PS3 [playstation.com]. While many games work fine, there are also a significant number in the lowest-score "noticeable issues" category. Also note the caveats, like how you should skip optional FMV sequences and how you shouldn't use network modes due to graphical corruption.

The fact is without even the specifics it should be obvious that software emulation will not work just as well as hardware emulation. Which isn't emulation at all, it's hardware compatability, it's physically utilizing the original PS2 hardware that the game was originally designed to run on. With the hardware "emulation", you basically have an actual PS2 to run your PS2 games on. The Emotion Engine is not simple, and creating a perfectly compatible software version that exactly matches not only every bit of functionality but also the relative timing of operations which many games depend on is very difficult and not something that is going to be made perfect. They will necessarily have to go on a case-by-case basis finding games that depend on a particular quirk of the Emotion Engine and fix them and issue patches.

I'm not saying the software emulation is crap, and if the games you want to play are well supported according to the compatability list then you should be good to go. I am saying that the switch from hardware compatability to software emulation has hurt backward compatability. That's not FUD, it's a fucking fact. Which should be obvious, because before the EU PS3 release they didn't even have a compatability list because there was no point.

Since the 1.8 firmware, even the models that have the hardware emulation have been using the software emulator if you enable upscaling. Yet the emulation is still better than acceptable. Certainly, I prefer it to my non-upscaled actual PS2.

But you should swear about it, and turn it into a huge issue, and pretend that it's worse than the competition, etc... Go right ahead. It's what we expect from the Slashdot 360 Fanboy, er.... Slashdot Games section.

Who said anything about it being worse than the competition? Point me to one quote in this thread saying that. What people are saying is that emulated back compat is not as good as hardware back compat, and that this means that the newer model PS3's are not as good (in this specific respect) compared to the older PS3's. That's all.There's no doubt that the PS3, even using software emulation, is better at BC than the 360 - but the original PS3 implementation and the Wii are both better yet as they include th

Who said anything about it being worse than the competition? Point me to one quote in this thread saying that.

I won't, because there wasn't one. That doesn't mean it's not relevant though. Nor does my saying that invalidate the rest of my point. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but last I checked, the PS3 was competing against another system, not against itself. Comparing it to the competition isn't what you do when you're a "fanboy" (as your sister post implies), it's a sane comparison. If I had only m

Software emulation is inherently more buggy than using the actual hardware to emulate it. The reason the PS2 emulated the PS1 so well was that the main CPU of the PS1 was used in the PS2 as an auxilliary processor and could be used to run the PS1 games. Even if you had a perfect emulator environment without software bugs (not gonna happen) a software solution will never have the same timings as a hardware solution because it has to go through an extra layer. And yes, video games trying to max out the bar

software can't get the same level of compatability as the actual hardware on board

That's right. Hardware is fashioned from semi-sentient fairy dust.

In our world, though, hardware is an expression of an algorithm, said algorithm being implementable in software as well. Haven't you ever used Qemu or any number of video game emulators? It's quite possible to get exact emulation down. It may not be easy and I'd hate to be the one that had to do it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

For the recent generations of consoles, this is because the emulator programmers are using OpenGL or DirectX to emulate the console's GPU. Since OpenGL, DirectX, and console GPUs have different capabilities, and none of them is very flexible, there's a resulting loss of accuracy -- but since no other part of a desktop computer is fast enough to do the job, they do it anyway.

The PS3, on the other hand, has a half-dozen SPUs. These are every bit as fast as a GPU, but far more programmable.

Price flamewars aside, the main issue with the PS3 is its library isn't really spectacular. Without a decent library (either general or exclusive titles) it is not going to sell well, even if it was the exact price of an XBox 360.

So, Konami is thinking about not making MGS exclusive to the PS3 because the sales have been poor.

But the sales won't increase without publishers hitching their star to the PS3 as exclusive titles (even if it's just exclusive for a year or so).

Then again, I don't see why 3rd party publishers go exclusive anymore. If you can increase sales by 50% by simply recoding an existing product then go for it. Note: I'm a software developer and I know very well that's not as easy as it sounds. But it's obviously possible asince it's being done now (even across the Wii and the 360, which are as different as you can get).

The game library of the PS3 is small compared to the 360 because it shipped a year after the 360. Compare the library of the PS3 to what the Wii has for a fair comparison -- PS3 has far more games. This "problem" with the PS3 will be fixed shortly, there are a bunch of great exclusives just around the corner. MGS, Gran Turismo, Heavenly Sword, Hot Shots Golf, Little Big Planet, etc, etc.

PS3 is doing just fine for a console that shipped only seven months ago.

It's doing "alright," but the Wii was launched at the same time and it's doing MUCH better.The sheer number of games doesn't matter. The quality of the games (and marketability, etc. of course) is what makes the difference. A console can have only 10 games and still be fine if those 10 games are so awesome that everyone buys all 10. Halo 3 for MS is better than 20 crap RPG games for Sony that will barely sell. Likewise FFXIII and FFXIII Versus will do more for PS3 than 20 rubbish sports games on 360. Indeed

I'm neither in the 9-12 market, or the college drinking crowd. And I don't give a shit about the online ability. I want to play with my friends. Everyone else- not really. Most of the PC games I own with multiplayer I never even touch those modes. If MP was that important, MS would have owned last generation and everyone would have had live. As it was, about 10-15% of Xbox owners ever subscribed.Hey, don't get me wrong, I'll be glad to see the Wii get that option. But its not the blocker for most yo

I keep seeing Ninja Gaiden Sigma referred to as a 'AAA exclusive,' or similar wording, when it is just a port of Ninja Gaiden Xbox, with a few new weapons and moves thrown in, and Rachel as a playable character.

Well, if you haven't played NG or NG Black and you're considering a PS3 for whatever reasons, then NG Sigma is most certainly a must-buy (I'd say just like Zelda: TP is a must-buy for Wii despite being on the Gamecube). It's a great game, despite not being new at all.

Though buying an original Xbox, NG Black, and a new set of tires makes more sense ^^

Ah, well I can't disagree on the lack of good games on the Wii right now. Wii sports is bundled and it's something I'd rather them take out so I could save some money when I *do* buy the system. Zelda is IMO better on GCN, and certainly not much worse (not $250 worse that's for sure).On the other hand, those AAA titles you listed for PS3 are spanked by 360's current lineup, which might be one of the biggest problems the lineup hasn't helped the PS3 much. Resistance was almost universally rated "good but wor

It's a matter of taste.For someone like me Resistance, Motorstorm and Ninja Gaidin are dubious exclusives. They're either genres with entries spanning back into the depths of time, or the third iteration of a game I've beaten about 7 times. That's not how it is for you, hence we discover the obvious that people are different.

What we find is that what ultimately brings the most people to a given console are unique games. Katamari Damancy, Guitar Hero, and Wii Sports are these kinds of games. They are practic

PS3 worldwide sales are so far following the sales trends of the GameCube [vgchartz.com], with the PS3 getting a small boost from the EU launch. It also follows pretty close to the worldwide XBox sales, which only had a large market share in the US and ignored everywhere else. For US numbers only [vgchartz.com], the PS3 is selling slightly below the GameCube--the also-ran of the last generation in terms of market penetration.

The PS3 is competing against a console with a year's head start to break 10m units, and another console that has a wicked upwards surge and will probably break 10m units within the next few months. Sony has a lot of work to do to avoid becoming the also-ran of this generation. With the number of exclusives moving multiplatform, it may already be too late to retake momentum.

PS3 worldwide sales are so far following the sales trends of the GameCube, with the PS3 getting a small boost from the EU launch. It also follows pretty close to the worldwide XBox sales, which only had a large market share in the US and ignored everywhere else.

Really, the only problem of the PS3 is the price. That's it.There's just a limit to how many people are going to shell out 500/600 for a game console.They sold a ton of PS3s at launch and they hit that limit.That's why this price cut is so mind-boggling -- it just brings the current price back inline with what was offered at launch. To gamers, the difference between the original 500/600 dollar SKUs just wasn't relevant. If there was anyone out there who was willing to pay $500 for a PS3, they already hav

As I noted in the "price drop" discussion, this is an awfully funny way to drop the price. As the PS3 was available at launch for $499, it might be better to call this a "model upgrade." You get a few more features now than you would have on launch, but you still can't go out and buy a PS3 for any cheaper than you could on launch day. I remember reading something around the time Sony announced their pricing that showed $200 or $250 as the historic "sweet spot" for console launches and adjusted for inflation found that the sweet spot was around $400.

Which means Nintendo came in below target, Microsoft managed to subsidize (initially) enough to keep under target, and Sony has announced a "price drop" that would have put their 20GB model about where it needs to be... except that it's no longer offered, so you still have to pay $499 to get the cheapest PS3 available.

That's the thing, this $200 sweet spot apparently doesn't psychologically adjust itself to inflation. So you can't get away with arguing "Yeah, $500 seems like a lot, but if you adjust for inflation, it's like you're getting a console that costed $200 many years ago. We're sure our logic will overcome your psychology without difficulty!" Except that electronics goods are constantly getting cheaper, so we expect them to cost the same or less in the future, using whatever the current dollar is.

No, it's a price cut. The vast majority of PS3 buyers chose the 60GB version because of the (incorrect) assumption that the 20GB was a gimped console. New buyers will now save $100. Smart buyers will still be able to buy a 20GB console, which are selling for around $400 new or $350 second-hand on Ebay right now.

A price cut is a price cut, even if you cover your eyes and plug your ears and scream "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you".

Ok, Sony Started out with 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. Now they have 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. The feature spec is now different, but how is that a price cut? For the sake of comparison let's take Sony out of the picture and compare Cameras.

Last year you could buy a 5.1 Megapixel camera solo for $199, or a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $249.

This year you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $199, or you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, extra batteries and a memory card for $249 and they no longer sell the 5.1 Megapixel camera by itself.

You are getting more for your money, but at the core you're buying a camera at the same price as was offered last year.

People think the PS3 is trash or the best thing ever, it is plain that the Sony braintrust has to do a serious rethink as to their marketing, packaging, partnerships and PR in regards to their console. A $100 price drop isn't going to help their cause much. They gave Nintendo a lesson back in PS1 vs N64 days, a lesson they seem to have forgotten.

I think people really like to rag on the PS3 for not being vary successful, but it seems to me that it's not doing terribly bad. If you look at sales numbers [vgchartz.com] and align the launches of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, the PS3 is more or less on the same track that the Xbox 360 was on.

If you check Amazon [amazon.com] you can see that the PS3 moved up to the number one selling item in the video game section. I think it was substantially lower (If I recall correctly it was 28th) before this from what I've been reading on other sit

Ah, but don't forget, the 360 was launched in November, IIRC, and there were supply problems until at least March, if not all the way into summer, of the next year; PS3s seem to have been in easy supply since launch.

Look at the sales rate on that graph. If your statement were entirely true, then as soon as more supply became available, the Xbox 360 would have seen a large spike in sales, but the sales trend continues at the same pace until the Christmas season when you see the sharp increase. I imagine that Sony will experience something like this with the PS3 and then fall back to normal, as did the Xbox 360.There are plenty of Xbox 360's out in the wild right now that are sitting on shelves and Microsoft had to decre

Wasn't the emotion engine supposed to be the next thing since sliced bread? How will removing something powerful make your system sell more? Sure, it will cut down in price, but Sony already took the "Expensive System, sure, but look at the power!" stance. If they buckle on it, I predict they'll continue to crumble.

At any rate, for myself, selling me a crappier system for $100 less is worse than selling me the real deal for the original price.

Today the PS3 is the #1 selling system on Amazon. Futureshop.CA reports they are sold out, and Best Buy.ca was also sold out at one point this morning. It may just be a quick jump following the Price cut and we may see Sony slip back down, but the 100$ off is obviously getting people pulling the trigger on it who otherwise wouldnt be.

You can get a PC for $500. You can't get a PC that's a comparable (or even a capable) gaming rig for $500. That article doesn't accomplish your goal. It's already more than $500 and it doesn't include an OS. Does it do 60 frames per second at HD resolutions on new games?

If you want a gaming PC that plays new games, you're not going to be buying a $500 PC in general. It will cost somewhat more than that.

The PS3 still has a chance to be successful. In the end it may not be the dominant system, but it can still do quite well. However, it has one giant obstacle to overcome, even larger than it's price tag. And that's a lack of games.

The PS3 is suffering from the same problem as the PSP, most games available for the system are crap. There are quite a few that are decent, for the PSP anyway, but virtually none that truly stand out. The cost of the console and questionable media format are mostly secondary factors driving people away from the system.

It's crucial, of course, that Sony and third party developers are devoted to the console in the long run. I'm impressed by the broad appeal of the Wii. I've met people who I'd never expect to be interested in game consoles telling me they own one. However, I'm also discovered a recurring pattern amongst these people. Many of them own one game: Wii Sports. If they own a second game it's almost always Wii Play, and that's because the game comes with a second controller. Unless there's a somewhat informed gamer in the household I don't see these people buying anything else. And when they do own additional games everyone uniformly considers Wii Sports the most fun. That's the thing with casual and non-gamers. They aren't the most loyal of consumers, at least not in this segment. They're not going to be buying 10 games or more a year.

So this is where the PS3 still has a viable future. Provided, of course companies start releasing some great games for the console. If the PS3 had phenomenal games people wouldn't be complaining about cost and Bluray. People have no problem paying for an iPhone which other than having a unique interface and the Apple brand image doesn't really do anything the competitors can't do. And on top of that it costs as much as a PS3!

The embedded PS2 chip in the original PS3s was one of the most glaring signs that Sony had rushed the PS3 to market before it was ready. The several firmware upgrades in the 7-8 months since its release (up to 1.82 or so now) are more signs that Sony's tech is catching up to its marketing rollout.

The PS3 HW was always planned to offer PS2 support in SW emulation, not the chip. But they didn't finish the SW until the EU rollout, when they could finally drop the chip that was faster to design in than was emulation.

So what has happened is that Sony is now dropping its PS3 price right as it's dropping the more expensive HW kluge. That alone doesn't raise any realistic doubts. If anything, it shows how skillful is Sony in mitigating its project management and marketing risks with alternate designs. Because users won't even notice the difference. All they'll notice is dropping prices and increased functions.

But what I want to see is Sony actually change 2 basic PS3 limits that hold back Linux on it. First, Sony must offer a model with RAM expandable beyond the 256-500MB hardwired into current models. Without more RAM, the fast Cell rips through all the data in 2ms, then can rely on all its IO to get only enough data to keep the Cell about 2-5% busy.

The other change Sony should make is to open the Hypervisor [wikipedia.org] to allow SW running on the Cell to call at least the 2D graphics functions on the RSX videochip. Otherwise, all video must be computed on the Cell. PCs all put all that graphics/video computation/rendering on the VGA coprocessor.

If not, people will have to port Linux X drivers to the Cell SPEs. That could happen anyway, for even more interesting video processing than that built into the RSX. Once PS3 has video codecs ported to SPEs or RSX, MythTV will become a killer app, with a USB TV decoder feeding it, and a DLNA server [wikipedia.org] for archive.

Screw-up is harsh term for the PS3 thus far. I wouldn't ding them that harshly. Once the price issue is removed, it isn't a catastrophe, it's just...not the best. It's got online and it's free, but it's just not as good. Interface has a few nice features like internet browsing, but overall, it's not as tight of an experience as Xbox360 with relation to gaming, and this is a gaming console. On the other hand, the Wii is far worse, so I wouldn't say the PS3 is doing terribly here, just not as well as the Xbox360.

Games and lost exclusives, it is indeed Sony's job to make sure the games are in place, this is their biggest problem IMO. They didn't have enough of the right games, and have lost exclusivity on some of their better ones. But this is very much a matter of opinion, and I don't see them doing terribly here, just not as good as the Xbox360 or Wii in targeting the seperate markets. The Xbox360 is a direct competitor to the PS3 in terms of the games being fielded, and it's winning, while the PS3 can't compete at all with the Wii for obvious reasons.

So while there are no catastrophic mistakes aside from the price added by packing in Blu-ray, coming in 2nd-place in all categories leaves this console without a clear picture of what it's good for and who should buy it.

If I were to pick the worst part of the PS3's performance, I would have to stretch to include the marketing. It has been pure CRAP. Truly terrible. You would almost think that they have intentionally been sabotaging themselves. Have you seen the "This is Living" campaign? Soccer fanatic lying naked except for a jockstrap masturbating to a soccer game on TV? A busty-blonde pooping in a toilet telling stories about her mother? The mercenary's clip had a superb performance by the actor, really good stuff, and unfortunately, the message was that you should go and buy a bar of chocolate. However, this was a European campaign.

The U.S version was not that much better, though it had improved later on to actually show some clips of a game (Resistance). However, it had kicked off with a plastic baby crying blood to the sounds of Armageddon in a white room. Apparently they're trying to tell you that the PS3 kills babies and will bring about the Eschaton.

But as I have said, the PS3 isn't that bad of a package aside from the pricing. The games will happen someday, and when they do the PS3 will pick up some momentum. I don't think it has any chance of catching the Xbox360 or Wii. However, the PS3 has successfully established the next media format. HD-DVD is dead in the water since there are so many more blu-ray players in the wild. And releases will go to the format with the most people who can play them. And people will buy the format with the most releases on them...etc. etc. So Sony has that at least. Whether that translates into PS3 sales later on due to Blu-ray's lead on HD-DVD is questionable though.

not the best. It's got online and it's free, but it's just not as good. Interface has a few nice features like internet browsing, but overall, it's not as tight of an experience as Xbox360 with relation to gaming, and this is a gaming console.

This sounds like the commentary of somebody who hasn't spent much time with a PS3.

I used to think exactly what you just said, but my console experience this generation was limited to the 360, and the Wii. I had only played with store demo PS3s. I recently picked up a PS3, though, because I needed a new DVD player, and I wanted the upscaling and the BluRay support, and I must say that i'm generally impressed with the interface; even the online parts. "Tight" is exactly how I would describe it, and everything about the system. It's the first console I've ever owned that doesn't feel like a toy. I was also surprised to find that the downloadable content for the system far surpassed what was available for the Wii, which basically only has "classics" (read: old games; only some are truly classic). I haven't even turned my Wii on since I bought the PS3. I was also surprised by how open the system is. Standard memory card formats, many codecs playable from standard media servers, the ability to upgrade the hard drive, the controller being a HID compliant USB games controller.... Very un-Sony-like, but also very good.

I do agree that the marketing for the system is terrible though. And the game selection is still mediocre. The price was a little steep for me, which would mean that it was really steep for a college kid, or a parent, but with the price cut it'll hurt a little less.

As someone that bought a PS3 and a 360, I think the PS3 is a much better system.

1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.5) Blue-Ray6) Up scaling DVD's7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)

Just adding some counterpoints for interests sake (disclaimer: I have both a 360 and PS3):1) This is only true IF you have a large TV or you sit closer than optimal viewing distance. The difference between 720p and 1080p is very hard to spot on anything less than 40" (unless you sit too close - at least 1.5-2x the size of the television is the distance away you ought to be). The difference between quality of different TV brands is much more a concern - a high quality tv at 720p can definately look bett

If you really don't understand the difference between the 360 upscaling 720p content to 1080p, and the PS3 natively supporting 1080p output then try the following:

Take two pictures with a digital camera: One at 1MP, and another at 2MP. Copy the photo files to your PC and then note the resolutions. Now, use a photo editor to stretch the image of the first photo to the same resolution of the second. Notice a difference between the two? The first photo lacks the detail of the second because it never had the additional detail in the first place.

So sure, 720p games scaled to 1080p will look good, but the art assets (textures, etc.) were not created for the higher resolution.

As for the media drives, I prefer the quitness and constant throughput of the PS3's drive, thanks. Last night, for shits, I loaded up Gears of War (gamertag: Ilidd, if you want proof) again after having not played my 360 in several months. The DVD drive is just as obnoxiously loud as I remember it.

I don't buy 360 versions of games anymore and I'm seriously playing with the idea of selling my 360 because the system is unreliable and noisy. Yes, I know the 3RRoD is warranted for 3 years now. I don't care. A console shouldn't break that quickly in the first place.

No matter what happens to the PS3 at this point (win, lose, becomes another Dreamcast story) I've already recieved lots of enjoyment from it. Yes, it was expensive but it was worth every penny. I can honestly see that system physically lasting for 10+ years because of the build quality. I can't say the same for my 360 and I won't replace it when it breaks.

I guess my whole point is that if gamers were to sit down with a PS3 and play all the games it has, I think they would really enjoy it. Every person I've had play mine loves the system and the games, except for one guy, who as much as I like the dude, is a Xbox fanboy in the worst way. Some people are that way and it's honestly their loss. I hate Microsoft's shoddy products, but I still gave both their systems a chance. I didn't like the direction Nintendo went with the Wii, but I bought one. I sold it because it was boring to me, but I still see why some people go crazy over it.

The thing about the Wii online catalog is that I own most of those games already for my Genesis, TurboGrafix16, SNES, etc, and I even already own re-releases for many of them in GameCube form that works just fine in my Wii. The PS3 has original and semi-original downloadable content that is actually pretty good. fl0w, GripShift, Stardust, GoPuzzle!, Super Rub-a-dub.... I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head.I'm sure that Nintendo will have some Wii original offerings in their store eventuall

If I were to pick the worst part of the PS3's performance, I would have to stretch to include the marketing. It has been pure CRAP. Truly terrible. You would almost think that they have intentionally been sabotaging themselves. Have you seen the "This is Living" campaign? Soccer fanatic lying naked except for a jockstrap masturbating to a soccer game on TV? A busty-blonde pooping in a toilet telling stories about her mother? The mercenary's clip had a superb performance by the actor, really good stuff, and unfortunately, the message was that you should go and buy a bar of chocolate. However, this was a European campaign.

Ok, I'm already scared that they thought this would work in Europe. The more important question: did it? Because if so, I shudder to think what they'll use to advertise the PS4, furry snuff films? Or did Moby already beat them to it [youtube.com]?

The GP did say Sony, and I know I've read many comments, many previous to launch, where people were planning on not buying because of the PC root kit fiasco. They've also been severely trashed for not having rumble in the controller. I hear their isn't much to their library, and nothing you couldn't get on the 360 so why spend the extra cash.

I suppose all of the other PS3 issues relate in some way to the price of the console. When Sony first announced the price of the console, the executives acted very aloof like they were giving customers the privilege of being able to buy a PS3 at $600 (Apple has managed to do the same thing with a phone that also requires a $40 service plan and get adored for it), made statements about how the next generation didn't start until they launched, and generally acted like they didn't care what the customers thought and people should be lining up to give them money just because they're Sony. That's not a very customer friendly attitude to have, and has made everybody that felt condescended by Sony look at their product and decide that there isn't enough of a difference between the PS3 and the 360 to warrant the higher price, so they'll get the 360 since most games will be ported anyway.

Sony also has not paid attention to the history of consoles, and how no $500 console has ever done well. Further, all of the tens of millions of people that bought the last system are now about 2-6 years older than when they bought a PS2. For the twenty and thirty somethings in that group, many are now married, have kids, and the $700 or $800 (because you want games with that console right?) commitment is not as feasible that the $400 or $500 of the PS2, and many have also decided "been there, done that" for most of the games, and decided not to ante up for the newer model when they older one does just fine, or they've moved to the 360 for a better online experience, or to the Wii to try something new.

The last round, the Xbox was the hard core system, the PS2 was mainstream system with the GameCube. It's like Sony decided they wanted to switch roles with Microsoft, and go after the higher end market. HELLOO!!! You guys kicked the crap out of the Xbox last time because they were the high end system, and you were more affordable, and you decided to go after their part of the market, and left the core open for Microsoft and Nintendo to swoop in and take it away from you.

Also, with the PS and PS2, Sony used misinformation and hype to bury their competition because everybody waited to see what Sony had to offer which made the Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn and Dreamcast suffer, and Sony managed to do well enough to beat those offerings plus the N64, GameCube, and Xbox. This time, they're competing with a 360 that is comparable to the PS3 on value basis and a Wii that wants to take away the casual gamers that Sony had last generation.

The biggest thing of all has been the word of mouth. Sure, Sony kicked Nintendo's tail on launch week. But it didn't take long until word of mouth got around and demand for the Wii was through the roof. My wife reads lots of parenting magazines, and every one of them has had articles recommending a Wii for family friendly fun so that the family can spend time together while playing instead of junior hanging out in a corner of the basement alone, and they have the option of providing junior with active games so he'll be in a little better shape than he would be with any PlayStation game other than DDR or Guitar Hero. They also option of playing games that they played 10-25 years ago, and wouldn't mind playing again, with their kids.

The stock markets are all about where you are going. If a company can't sell a story or concept to investors it typically trades at a fairly low multiple of earnings (these are classified as value companies). When they can they trade at a much higher multiple of earnings. As examples Apple is trading at 38x it's earnings. Dell trades at about 20 times it's earnings this year. Investors believe that Apple is more likely to grow its earnings faster than Dell will so they pay a higher price now.

The other factor that impacts market value is the total size of your profitablity. It's likely that Sony's other businesses earn less money (per dollar of sales) than consoles (in good times), so Sony's other businesses don't add as much as you might expect to its market value.

That is all you need to know. Think of how many billions they have made on that simple fact. It isn't like it costs $8 to print 10-20 cards. You are seeing pure profit in the card game. Not to mention the millions in TV franchise rights, movie revenues, and finally video game sales (which also happen to require requisite video game consoles which also sell at a profit unlike competitors). It has been a cash printing machine for the last 10+ years. It makes more money at less risk then any music business can.

You also forget that Nintendo owns a LOT of different IP which they license to many other entities. Their entire business model is based such that even if console tanks, they have enough cash to continue onwards. They keep their development costs low as well as their production costs and make sure they always are making a profit on each and everything they sell so they do not have to rely on future revenue from game sales to make a profit. They have had several systems which have flat out tanked in the past, but have always been able to continue through the market ups and downs (unlike some competitors, Atari, Activision, NeoGeo, SEGA... who couldn't last a single bad console release).

Nintendo also has a 100 year history. Think of how much money they must have sitting aside for a rainy day. Pokemon, the DS and now the Wii have pretty much solidified that they're not going away anytime soon.

Unfortunately, Sony has been hemorrhaging money for the last few years. Remember a couple years ago when they slashed some divisions, like the AIBO group? Investor's are reacting to this, especially since the PS3 & Blu-ray were touted to be the saviors of the company.

Bullshit. The Xbox was basically a PC, and compare the games from the beginning of it's life to the end. Vast difference in quality. I have no doubt that 360 games will continue to look better as time progresses. The PS3 may in fact have more grunt than the 360 (though from what I've read, the 360 sounds to have the better graphics subsystem while the PS3 seems to have a far more powerful CPU) but to say that the Wii and 360 have already maxed out on their graphics is asinine.

Do a bit of digging for the technical specs on the PS3 and 360. You'll find that the 360's graphics hardware is in fact superior to the PS3's, and its memory architecture is more flexible.Developers will come to know the power of the PS3, true, but they'll also come to know its limitations. And in these days of tightening deadlines and limited budgets, it is unlikely that many developers will even complete the learning process.

One major flaw in your reasoning is that developers will have no incentive to invest the resources to "learn the ins and outs of the Cell" if there's not a huge install base. Those AAA titles are fuckin'*expensive*, especially on strange ass hardware no one's used before. So no, Sony can't really afford a slow start. Slow start = small install base = no return on expensive AAA titles. For example, in this very article Konami is talking about making MGS non-exclusive. Do you really think cross-platform

I'm not saying a 1080p movie isn't impressive looking. I'm saying that at some point I forget to notice how 'crisp' it looks and start paying attention to the events unfolding in the movie.When you first get an HD player, you get HD movies just to see how they look. Hell, I would've watched The Adventures of Hanna Montana in HD if it was the only thing available at the time. But as time passes, you stop being hyper-aware of how it looks and start going back to just watching a movie.

Well I disagree with the point about a movie being just as good in either format. If you take a movie I love, lets say Batman Begins, I'd much rather watch it on HD-DVD than regular DVD (be it upconverted or not).

That being said I agree with your original point. I bought the hd add-on for my 360 (got a good deal, so theres that). But now I'll be watching some regular DVD that isn't out in HD, and I'll just stare at my tv stand, with my $100 hd add-on and my 5 hd-dvds and wonder if all of that was real

But 'Planet Earth' in HD is different- every time you see a panoramic view of an African plain with clearly identifiable animals moving all over it, or a time lapse satellite shot of a weather system moving around the curve of the Earth, you're reminded how stunning the picture is.

I hope you're watching the original* one narrated by David Attenborough [wikipedia.org] and not the one that's been translated into American (from the original english) by Sigourney Weaver.;p

*before I'm corrected by a pedant: yes, I know that the BBC co-produced it with the Discovery Channel so there is no "original" but it's a joke, laugh.

This will help when it comes to anyone who hasn't bought a PS3 or 360 yet, I'm just not sure how much going to impact people who have already bought a 360. There isn't much reason to own both, as the exclusive are (for the most part) rather similar in genre and nature. Barring games like Dead Rising and MGS4, the exclusives are mostly analogous.

Now, after the "price drop" the prices for their two versions are...$499 and $599.

Sure, the harddrives are bigger between then and now, but other than that not much is different (oh, except it's SW instead of HW backward compatibility, which is a downgrade whichever way you slice it).